SCOTUS signals upcoming historic approval for gay marriage

[Zoom-boing]

Dodgeball, you're doing it right.

I'm coming right at you, asking you to tell us what your point is. That's about as direct as it gets.

And you can't tell me what your point is. When you can, I'll be around.

Reading comprehension not your strong suit, is it?

If marriage is not one man/one woman (just two consenting adults), then what is the harm in two brothers marrying each other? Or two sisters? Or even a mother and daughter, father and son? Shouldn't they be allowed to take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage? Isn't that the whole point of ssm anyway? Because ss couples can not take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage if they can't marry?

So is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry?

My point that you keep dodging is bolded.

Are you going to answer or just continue to dodge?

I'm asking you to get to your point. And you won't tell me what it is.

Is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry? Yes or no are perfectly acceptable answers. I'd accept "it depends" with an explanation.

Either tell me your point, or quit wasting my time.

Stop being obtuse. My point is bolded, above.

Just answer my questions. Yes or no are perfectly acceptable answers. I'd accept "it depends" with an explanation.

 

[Skylar]

I'm coming right at you, asking you to tell us what your point is. That's about as direct as it gets.

And you can't tell me what your point is. When you can, I'll be around.

Reading comprehension not your strong suit, is it?

If marriage is not one man/one woman (just two consenting adults), then what is the harm in two brothers marrying each other? Or two sisters? Or even a mother and daughter, father and son? Shouldn't they be allowed to take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage? Isn't that the whole point of ssm anyway? Because ss couples can not take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage if they can't marry?

So is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry?

My point that you keep dodging is bolded.

Are you going to answer or just continue to dodge?

I'm asking you to get to your point. And you won't tell me what it is.

Is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry? Yes or no are perfectly acceptable answers. I'd accept "it depends" with an explanation.

Either tell me your point, or quit wasting my time.

Stop being obtuse. My point is bolded, above.

Just answer my questions. Yes or no are perfectly acceptable answers. I'd accept "it depends" with an explanation.

Laughing.....you've peppered this thread with endless questions but have never gotten to your point.

I ask you what you point is....and ask more questions.

Is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Every vote on the matter since 2011, when the tide of public opinion on same sex marriage shifted toward recognition....has been in favor of gay marriage. 3 of the last 3 votes have been affirmative.

Just a couple of technical corrections:

1. Every General Election vote since 2012 has been in favor of Marriage Equality. North Carolina voted against it in 2012, but they put the measure on the Republican Primary date instead of the General Election to ensure it passed by a wide margin.

Are you shitting me? They actually did that in North Carolina? That's pretty fucked up.

North Carolina Same-Sex Marriage Amendment 1 May 2012 - Ballotpedia

The vote was in May on the same date as the Republican Primary instead of being in November on the General Election Ballot.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

Every vote on the matter since 2011, when the tide of public opinion on same sex marriage shifted toward recognition....has been in favor of gay marriage. 3 of the last 3 votes have been affirmative.

Just a couple of technical corrections:

1. Every General Election vote since 2012 has been in favor of Marriage Equality. North Carolina voted against it in 2012, but they put the measure on the Republican Primary date instead of the General Election to ensure it passed by a wide margin.

Are you shitting me? They actually did that in North Carolina? That's pretty fucked up.

North Carolina Same-Sex Marriage Amendment 1 May 2012 - Ballotpedia

The vote was in May on the same date as the Republican Primary instead of being in November on the General Election Ballot.


>>>>

Do they normally do ballot measures like that on primary voting days?

 

[Preacher]

The time is ripe for a Duke candidacy.




David Duke Mulls Run for Scalise s Seat NOLA DEFENDER

Good riddance to it though...I am actually surprised ANYONE seriously thought the gang of 9 tyrants was seriously NOT going to legalize sodomites "marrying"....Shit even the most ardent marriage supporter knew that was going to happen...

Same-sex couples are among the most ardent marriage supporters; it's their advocacy of marriage that motivates them to fight for their right to equal protection of the law and to indeed marry.

Marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. PERIOD. Not what your sick people want to turn it into,such disgusting perverts.

Ha ha ha, not any more.

You can't read very well. You perverted deviants can call it what you like it doesn't make it marriage any more than marrying a dog would.

Says the crazy who blames the Jews for the U.S. getting into WWII.

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

 

[Anathema]

And who gets to determine whether they've "earned" those things or not?

It's not determined by people. It's determined by the morals and values that ruled most of human society for thousands of years before people came up with this BS idea called FREEDOM back in the 17th Century.

 

[Skylar]

And who gets to determine whether they've "earned" those things or not?

It's not determined by people. It's determined by the morals and values that ruled most of human society for thousands of years before people came up with this BS idea called FREEDOM back in the 17th Century.

You're definitely gonna need to elaborate on that. Which morals and values are you referring to? And why is the idea of 'freedom' back in the 17th century 'BS'?

 

[Skylar]

The time is ripe for a Duke candidacy.




David Duke Mulls Run for Scalise s Seat NOLA DEFENDER

Same-sex couples are among the most ardent marriage supporters; it's their advocacy of marriage that motivates them to fight for their right to equal protection of the law and to indeed marry.

Marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. PERIOD. Not what your sick people want to turn it into,such disgusting perverts.

Ha ha ha, not any more.

You can't read very well. You perverted deviants can call it what you like it doesn't make it marriage any more than marrying a dog would.

Says the crazy who blames the Jews for the U.S. getting into WWII.

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

Germany declared war on us before we declared it on Germany. As did Japan.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Every vote on the matter since 2011, when the tide of public opinion on same sex marriage shifted toward recognition....has been in favor of gay marriage. 3 of the last 3 votes have been affirmative.

Just a couple of technical corrections:

1. Every General Election vote since 2012 has been in favor of Marriage Equality. North Carolina voted against it in 2012, but they put the measure on the Republican Primary date instead of the General Election to ensure it passed by a wide margin.

Are you shitting me? They actually did that in North Carolina? That's pretty fucked up.

North Carolina Same-Sex Marriage Amendment 1 May 2012 - Ballotpedia

The vote was in May on the same date as the Republican Primary instead of being in November on the General Election Ballot.


>>>>

Do they normally do ballot measures like that on primary voting days?

2014: One ballot measure in November

2012: One ballot measure in May

2010: One ballot measure in November

2008: None

2006: None

2004: Three ballot measures, all on the November ballot


Ballotpedia

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

And who gets to determine whether they've "earned" those things or not?

It's not determined by people. It's determined by the morals and values that ruled most of human society for thousands of years before people came up with this BS idea called FREEDOM back in the 17th Century.

Freedom in its truest form doesn't exist. Only on a deserted island. If there is one other human being there, your behavior would be subject to regulation, no matter how subtle. If the truest form of freedom existed, serial killers could ply their trade without fetterment.

If behaviors repugnant to the majority cannot be regulated, then how would we turn away others? In the name of equality, there would be no more yardstick the majority could use to regulate any behavior.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Reading comprehension not your strong suit, is it?

If marriage is not one man/one woman (just two consenting adults), then what is the harm in two brothers marrying each other? Or two sisters? Or even a mother and daughter, father and son? Shouldn't they be allowed to take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage? Isn't that the whole point of ssm anyway? Because ss couples can not take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage if they can't marry?

So is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry?

My point that you keep dodging is bolded.

Are you going to answer or just continue to dodge?

I'm asking you to get to your point. And you won't tell me what it is.

Is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry? Yes or no are perfectly acceptable answers. I'd accept "it depends" with an explanation.

Either tell me your point, or quit wasting my time.

Stop being obtuse. My point is bolded, above.

Just answer my questions. Yes or no are perfectly acceptable answers. I'd accept "it depends" with an explanation.

Laughing.....you've peppered this thread with endless questions but have never gotten to your point.

I ask you what you point is....and ask more questions.

Is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry?

Posting, for the last time, my questions. The point is obvious. The point is even bolded. Your continual dodging is telling me you don't have an answer. If that's the case, just say so.

If marriage is not one man/one woman (just two consenting adults), then what is the harm in two brothers marrying each other? Or two sisters? Or even a mother and daughter, father and son? Shouldn't they be allowed to take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage? Isn't that the whole point of ssm anyway? Because ss couples can not take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage if they can't marry?

 

[Skylar]

So is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry?

My point that you keep dodging is bolded.

Are you going to answer or just continue to dodge?

I'm asking you to get to your point. And you won't tell me what it is.

Is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry? Yes or no are perfectly acceptable answers. I'd accept "it depends" with an explanation.

Either tell me your point, or quit wasting my time.

Stop being obtuse. My point is bolded, above.

Just answer my questions. Yes or no are perfectly acceptable answers. I'd accept "it depends" with an explanation.

Laughing.....you've peppered this thread with endless questions but have never gotten to your point.

I ask you what you point is....and ask more questions.

Is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry?

Posting, for the last time, my questions. The point is obvious. The point is even bolded. Your continual dodging is telling me you don't have an answer. If that's the case, just say so.

If marriage is not one man/one woman (just two consenting adults), then what is the harm in two brothers marrying each other? Or two sisters? Or even a mother and daughter, father and son? Shouldn't they be allowed to take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage? Isn't that the whole point of ssm anyway? Because ss couples can not take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage if they can't marry?

So is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry?

 

[Zoom-boing]

My point that you keep dodging is bolded.

Are you going to answer or just continue to dodge?

I'm asking you to get to your point. And you won't tell me what it is.

Is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry? Yes or no are perfectly acceptable answers. I'd accept "it depends" with an explanation.

Either tell me your point, or quit wasting my time.

Stop being obtuse. My point is bolded, above.

Just answer my questions. Yes or no are perfectly acceptable answers. I'd accept "it depends" with an explanation.

Laughing.....you've peppered this thread with endless questions but have never gotten to your point.

I ask you what you point is....and ask more questions.

Is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry?

Posting, for the last time, my questions. The point is obvious. The point is even bolded. Your continual dodging is telling me you don't have an answer. If that's the case, just say so.

If marriage is not one man/one woman (just two consenting adults), then what is the harm in two brothers marrying each other? Or two sisters? Or even a mother and daughter, father and son? Shouldn't they be allowed to take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage? Isn't that the whole point of ssm anyway? Because ss couples can not take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage if they can't marry?

So is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry?

lol, it's ok if you don't have an answer. I told you that. Just say so.

Maybe someone else will answer my questions.

 

[Katzndogz]

My point that you keep dodging is bolded.

Are you going to answer or just continue to dodge?

I'm asking you to get to your point. And you won't tell me what it is.

Is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry? Yes or no are perfectly acceptable answers. I'd accept "it depends" with an explanation.

Either tell me your point, or quit wasting my time.

Stop being obtuse. My point is bolded, above.

Just answer my questions. Yes or no are perfectly acceptable answers. I'd accept "it depends" with an explanation.

Laughing.....you've peppered this thread with endless questions but have never gotten to your point.

I ask you what you point is....and ask more questions.

Is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry?

Posting, for the last time, my questions. The point is obvious. The point is even bolded. Your continual dodging is telling me you don't have an answer. If that's the case, just say so.

If marriage is not one man/one woman (just two consenting adults), then what is the harm in two brothers marrying each other? Or two sisters? Or even a mother and daughter, father and son? Shouldn't they be allowed to take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage? Isn't that the whole point of ssm anyway? Because ss couples can not take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage if they can't marry?

So is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry?

Once we normalize an aberration there is no point to not normalizing all of them.

 

[Syriusly]

They were already eligible to marry.

It changes the definition of what marriage has been in America.

So?

Why shouldn't two brothers be allowed to marry and take advantage of the benefits? Two consenting adults, hurting no one.

Sounds like you have some parades to organize. Best of luck.

Changing the definition opens the door. For example:

Please explain why two brothers, two consenting adults, shouldn't be allowed to marry. To take advantage of the benefits. How will that harm you?

Because the definition of marriage isn't being 'changed,' no 'door' is being 'opened.'

Marriage remains a commitment of two equal, unrelated, consenting adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference. Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts; marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

That's not the case with two brothers wishing to marry, where no marriage law is written to accommodate siblings.

Consequently, your 'argument' fails as a slippery slope fallacy, it's nothing more than unfounded, inane demagoguery.

The definition of marriage certainly is being changed. Marriage is one man/one woman. Same-sex marriage is not.

The definition of marriage has been changed over time. Marriage up until about 100 years ago virtually made the wife the property of the husband- she lost almost all separate legal identity- that status called coverture was part of the definition of marriage for hundreds of years.

Over time, the gender bias in marriage has been essentially eliminated- spouses are now legal equivalents before the law in marriage.

This is just a similar evolution for marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm asking you to get to your point. And you won't tell me what it is.

Is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry? Yes or no are perfectly acceptable answers. I'd accept "it depends" with an explanation.

Either tell me your point, or quit wasting my time.

Stop being obtuse. My point is bolded, above.

Just answer my questions. Yes or no are perfectly acceptable answers. I'd accept "it depends" with an explanation.

Laughing.....you've peppered this thread with endless questions but have never gotten to your point.

I ask you what you point is....and ask more questions.

Is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry?

Posting, for the last time, my questions. The point is obvious. The point is even bolded. Your continual dodging is telling me you don't have an answer. If that's the case, just say so.

If marriage is not one man/one woman (just two consenting adults), then what is the harm in two brothers marrying each other? Or two sisters? Or even a mother and daughter, father and son? Shouldn't they be allowed to take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage? Isn't that the whole point of ssm anyway? Because ss couples can not take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage if they can't marry?

So is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry?

Once we normalize an aberration there is no point to not normalizing all of them.

Exactly what people argued when mixed race marriages were considered an aberration.

 

[Syriusly]

If ssm does not redefine marriage, why didn't homosexuals get married to each other in 1920?

I don't know- in the United States just being known as a homosexual in the 1920's was potentially dangerous to the person's health.

I like to refer to the example that is quite current- that of the British codebreaker whose worked saved thousands of Allied lives- Alan Turing.

He had a marriage of convenience- because that is what was done then- and after the war, the British rewarded him for his assistance by arresting him for having sex with a man, and forced him to undergo chemical castration.

Why didn't homosexuals get married to each other in the 1920's- because having sex with each other was illegal- and they could have been arrested just for being married.

 

[Syriusly]

So you're arguing we should allow immediate family members to marry? That's your point?

Why don't you answer my questions?

Because you've asked about 20 of them in this thread alone. I'm kinda tired of playing the question game.

Get to your point.

Dodgeball, you're doing it right.

I'm coming right at you, asking you to tell us what your point is. That's about as direct as it gets.

And you can't tell me what your point is. When you can, I'll be around.

Reading comprehension not your strong suit, is it?

If marriage is not one man/one woman (just two consenting adults), then what is the harm in two brothers marrying each other? Or two sisters? Or even a mother and daughter, father and son? Shouldn't they be allowed to take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage? Isn't that the whole point of ssm anyway? Because ss couples can not take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage if they can't marry?

As I said before- you seem to think we are under some obligation to make your arguments for you.

If you want to pursue incestuious marriage- then the courts and the legislature are both legitimate options for you to pursue.

But it is not the argument before the courts- the argument before the court is whether a same gender couple should be legally treated the same as my wife and I are.

Are you for equal treatment of same gender couples- or against it?

 

[Syriusly]

This isn't a case for the Supreme court. They should stay out of it

If the Supreme Court stays out of it, then same gender marriage will remain legal in all but what 3 states?

Or the Supreme Court could resolve the issue.

 

[Syriusly]

Not anymore it isn't...just like the definition isn't black people marrying black people and white people marrying white people. Just like the definition of voting is no longer white male land owners. The basic definition of marriage has not changed, only who is allowed to do it.

How many times do I have to wish you luck? Go ahead and try. Challenge the court to marry your brother. As long as siblings are preventing from procreating if they marry, I don't give a shit.

So homosexuals weren't allowed to marry prior to ssm being around?

So brothers or sisters can marry each other ... but that doesn't change what marriage is either. Weird.

No, not right now they can't, but you seem to think that there is no rational basis to discriminate against siblings marrying each other. That has nothing to do with gays and lesbians marrying.

You have as much right to challenge the prohibitions on incest marriage as gays did to challenge anti gay marriage laws. Good luck.

You misread my post. I'm saying ... you are fine with brothers and sisters marrying each other and believe that doesn't change what marriage is.

Marriage is whatever we say it is. We invented it.

Prior to the gay marriage push, when asked, the public overwhelmingly said it is between one man/one woman. Judges said f-you.

So when the public says overwhelmingly that they want restrictive gun laws, and judges say those laws are unconstitutional- are the judges saying fuck you then?